Same God?

[GrowingSmaller]

Surat Al-Kafirun - The Noble Qur'an - ?????? ??????


Koranic logic goes like this: My way or its your wrong way.

Not very diplomatic but logical. 'Summum bonum' leads the way, alll else is astray. Both inwardly and outwardly...

 

[Percivale]

The general arguments for theism are unconvincing, but even if they were somewhat convincing, they would only warrant deism. How do you leap from there to "And the Son of God died for your sins"?

You are right, the general theistic arguments, such as ones from the origin of the universe or life or the improbability of our coming into existence without intelligent input, only warrant deism. However, there aren't that many deists for the good reason that if you once get to that point, miracles or God revealing himself in some way becomes possible, and the evidence for Jesus' resurrection is strong enough to be convincing. Christianity can make a lot better case for its truth than other religions, and also has done the most good in the world (though Buddhism probably has done the least harm).

 

[JGG]

You are right, the general theistic arguments, such as ones from the origin of the universe or life or the improbability of our coming into existence without intelligent input, only warrant deism. However, there aren't that many deists for the good reason that if you once get to that point...

Wait. What point? How do you get there?

miracles or God revealing himself in some way becomes possible...

Wait. Why are miracles and God revealing Himself in some way only possible when you're there (wherever that may be). Why are miracles only possible at that point? Why is God limited in when He can reveal Himself? Sorry, continue...

and the evidence for Jesus' resurrection is strong enough to be convincing.

Wait. Evidence for Jesus' resurrection is only strong depending on whether you're at a certain point? That would be subjective evidence. Subjective evidence is always weak.

Christianity can make a lot better case for its truth than other religions, and also has done the most good in the world (though Buddhism probably has done the least harm).

Do you have a lot of knowledge about other religions? Let's take Hinduism. What is it about Hinduism that makes it's case for truth inherently weaker than Christianity?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You are right, the general theistic arguments, such as ones from the origin of the universe or life or the improbability of our coming into existence without intelligent input, only warrant deism.

And yet the vast majority of the apologists using these arguments are not deists, but Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

However, there aren't that many deists for the good reason that if you once get to that point, miracles or God revealing himself in some way becomes possible,

It wasn't possible for miracles to occur or for God to reveal himself prior to accepting the conclusion of these arguments? It only becomes possible once one is at least a deist?

and the evidence for Jesus' resurrection is strong enough to be convincing. Christianity can make a lot better case for its truth than other religions,

I've heard this so many times, from so many apologists of different religions.

and also has done the most good in the world (though Buddhism probably has done the least harm).

What does that have to do with the truth of its claims?

 

[KCfromNC]

What does that have to do with the truth of its claims?

Obviously we can judge reality based on the amount of harm caused by the followers of a particular view of reality. That's why a vast majority of people who accept the argument for a generic god worship the Force from Star Wars, since basically no one has ever been harmed by someone who believes in it.

Or maybe not...

 

[Davian]

IMV, the problem isn't with gods or universes specifically at all. The problem goes with thinking multiple conceptions of anything means multiple anythings.

I think God exists and hold certain concepts, including that he created the universe. Bill also thinks God exists and holds certain concepts, including that he created the universe. Guy comes along and is like, "hey, you're talking about two different gods!" Why's that? Because although both me and Bill agree on God creating the universe (i.e., being a creator), because we have different perspectives otherwise this therefore means we're talking about two different things.

But is it necessarily true that if we have different perspectives on something, especially if we agree on one important characteristic, that we're talking about two different things? Of course not. Therefore the argument that multiple conceptions of God means there are multiple gods (hence "which God?" as a response) is incorrect.

In the absence of a robust definition from each of you for what you mean by "God" from which a determination could be made that you are actually talking about the same thing (that actually might exist), I see no reason why I should not ask "which God?".

 

[Davian]

You are right, the general theistic arguments, such as ones from the origin of the universe or life or the improbability of our coming into existence without intelligent input, only warrant deism.

Can you show your math for that "improbability" claim?

However, there aren't that many deists for the good reason that if you once get to that point, miracles or God revealing himself in some way becomes possible,

How did you determine that "miracles" are possible? What is a miracle, to you?

and the evidence for Jesus' resurrection is strong enough to be convincing.

From what I gather, it is only convincing if you believe it to be convincing.

Christianity can make a lot better case for its truth than other religions,

Religious opinion as "truth"; should not truth be determined by exploring reality?

and also has done the most good in the world (though Buddhism probably has done the least harm).

What has "doing good" to do with a region's claims comporting with reality or not?

 

[Percivale]

Let me ask you guys, why do you think we don't hear more from deists? A lot of non-philosophers seem to be vaguely deist, but of those who've studied the issue it doesn't seem like anyone is arguing for deism these days.

Miracles are acts of God. So if you believe there is a god you will consider miracles much more possible than if you don't.

Can you honestly say any other religion has evidence remotely close to what Christianity does? Does any other religion even claim to have a miracle central to it that occurred at a definite time in recorded history? Buddhism, Islam, and most others were started by one person who never claimed to have done any public miracle, nor to be anything more than human.

What is true usually works best, so the best religion practically is likely to be the truest. Now which one does the most good is a very different question from which one does the least harm. Jidu probably does very little harm, since it is small and makes no demands, but I doubt it does any good either. Christianity has done some harm, being large and sometimes misused for political ends, such as the crusades. But it has done a great amount of good. It was only in Christian lands that the scientific method and individual freedom flourished, and it was committed Christians that made the most change for good in human rights; for instance while evolution was being used to justify racism Christians like Wilberforce and the Abolitionists were abolishing slavery. The difference between the French and American revolutions is another good example.

 

[Received]

In the absence of a robust definition from each of you for what you mean by "God" from which a determination could be made that you are actually talking about the same thing (that actually might exist), I see no reason why I should not ask "which God?".

So if something doesn't have a good agreed-upon definition it must therefore be multiple things?

 

[TillICollapse]

So if something doesn't have a good agreed-upon definition it must therefore be multiple things?

Apart from the straw man ... I still don't get why monotheism, and not polytheism. If you don't have a more definitive definition ... even if it lacks falsifiability ... why not polytheism ? Why not multiple creators ? What is currently in existence that you can think of, that has only ONE instance of it's existence, without anything else in it's "class" to even compare it too ? Steph Curry not withstanding.

 

[Davian]

So if something doesn't have a good agreed-upon definition it must therefore be multiple things?

Where did I say "must"?

 

[Received]

Apart from the straw man ... I still don't get why monotheism, and not polytheism. If you don't have a more definitive definition ... even if it lacks falsifiability ... why not polytheism ? Why not multiple creators ? What is currently in existence that you can think of, that has only ONE instance of it's existence, without anything else in it's "class" to even compare it too ? Steph Curry not withstanding.

It's an attempted question, not a straw man.

Briefly, polytheism is out because multiplicity implies, basically, finitude. I have one, two, three deities like I have one, two, three bottles of wine in front of me. Because God is metaphysically required (if we assume he's the creator of the universe) to be infinite (i.e., because he's eternal, another requirement), he can't be multiple, given that multiplicity goes with the finite.

 

[Received]

Where did I say "must"?

You didn't say a lot of things in my question, which is why I'm asking it.

So "must" is out. What's the dividing line between something not agreed upon meaning we're still talking about the same thing we're attempting to define versus something not agreed upon meaning we're talking about different things?

 

[TillICollapse]

It's an attempted question, not a straw man.

It was the "it must therefore be multiple things" part. I didn't remember where anyone claimed that. It seemed like you wanted to address something which you were posing as though someone stated that, getting ready to perhaps build with straw.

Briefly, polytheism is out because multiplicity implies, basically, finitude. I have one, two, three deities like I have one, two, three bottles of wine in front of me. Because God is metaphysically required (if we assume he's the creator of the universe) to be infinite (i.e., because he's eternal, another requirement), he can't be multiple, given that multiplicity goes with the finite.

Rather than addressing each point, I just don't get these attributes as requirements. How do you conclude that God didn't come from a universe that had ANOTHER creator, where the "current God" was a created being, where he usurped that creator, managed a big crunch, and then designed another universe from all of that ? Or how do you conclude that God didn't start out as a single instance of something, divide into two instances of that something, then three, then four ... before those instances became "aware" to where they could create the universe ? If you keep going back to some point involving the beginning of the universe, I don't see where *that* is the point you believe all these attributes are somehow sound "requirements" to facilitate your definition you are forming.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Can you honestly say any other religion has evidence remotely close to what Christianity does?

I can honestly say that, from the apologetics I've heard, Christianity fares just as poorly as every other religion does when it comes to substantiating critical points of dogma.

Does any other religion even claim to have a miracle central to it that occurred at a definite time in recorded history? Buddhism, Islam, and most others were started by one person who never claimed to have done any public miracle, nor to be anything more than human.

And? What does that have to do with the truth of its claims? Are we supposed to believe Christianity is more credible because it has an extraordinary claim at its core? How does that follow?

What is true usually works best, so the best religion practically is likely to be the truest. Now which one does the most good is a very different question from which one does the least harm. Jidu probably does very little harm, since it is small and makes no demands, but I doubt it does any good either. Christianity has done some harm, being large and sometimes misused for political ends, such as the crusades. But it has done a great amount of good. It was only in Christian lands that the scientific method and individual freedom flourished, and it was committed Christians that made the most change for good in human rights; for instance while evolution was being used to justify racism Christians like Wilberforce and the Abolitionists were abolishing slavery. The difference between the French and American revolutions is another good example.

Many Christians also supported slavery by citing the scriptures. But again, what does this have to do with the truth of it?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's an attempted question, not a straw man.

Briefly, polytheism is out because multiplicity implies, basically, finitude. I have one, two, three deities like I have one, two, three bottles of wine in front of me. Because God is metaphysically required (if we assume he's the creator of the universe) to be infinite (i.e., because he's eternal, another requirement),

First, you claim an actual infinite cannot exist in reality; then you claim that being infinite is a metaphysical requirement for being God. Which is it?

he can't be multiple, given that multiplicity goes with the finite.

How does that follow? Why can't there be multiple co-eternal entities?

 

[KEBO12345]

I look at say 99 different God variants in the shop.
But first stop is the Deconditioning Room which has a machine that
removes Religious resident programming...everything anyone ever
thought they knew about the creator. blanked.

Then lets go shopping, no point in settling for the first store-bought
religion that you come across. But then if everyone else bought that product
it would be hard to pass up.

Doing a quick survey there are the big 3 Abrahamic religions which most people
in the world are part of. How much is religion and how much is tribal behaviour.

This is a world that requires no common sense and no continuous laws of physics.
Gods are useful for explaining things away regardless.

Then there is a heap of Gods across a plethora of cultures.
Most contain true with the false to make then somehow pallatable.
But we cannot go making things up to suit ourselves on this... that is a bridge too far
What does logic and reason, science and new science say about Gods these days?
Usually God is outside the mandate of science, unless of course you find him or his
mechanism. Anymore is a bonus. QM like most has a God of causation and
experiments suggest that everything is made out of something called Love.
nah I just added that in for effect but that is what modern mystics report
It is not impossible like some creators would appear to be when viewed in the light of QM.

A powerful god right under our noses that conquors all of them
It is the only true science religion that has pure new science at its core...
Quantum Mechanics and some good old New age mysticism to help decode it all.

I'm thinking or even challenging believers in the other 99 religions including atheism,
that if they havent spent a few hours getting a handle on QM, then they havent finished
their homework, before they pass hopefully.

QM is interesting in that it tests how 'Gods providence' might work in reality.
In essence QM proves that causation of evrything in manufactured at this near ultimate
level. And it proves that the God of Quantum Nature is the creator of everything and we are the witness with our objective subjective consciousness.

It proves that the God is rational and exceptions are caused probabilistically.
The religion attached to this is Pannpsychism. Briefly where matter and energy have
subjectivity and consciousness all the way down to the infinite level.
eg An electron has no choice, but to have a choice, about its spin and orbit.
Matter/energy is autopoetic, creative like our body has generated our mind.

If god provence is such a thing it does not belong here, and would not seem capable of influencing things in a non probabilistic way. Panpsychism is monism not dualism. It is unlike absolute materialisim like regular science (Atheism?) but different. rather radical materialism

 

[JGG]

Briefly, polytheism is out because multiplicity implies, basically, finitude. I have one, two, three deities like I have one, two, three bottles of wine in front of me.

Huh? Why?

Because God is metaphysically required (if we assume he's the creator of the universe) to be infinite (i.e., because he's eternal, another requirement), he can't be multiple, given that multiplicity goes with the finite.

Why does the creator of the universe have to be infinite? Nissan's Infiniti's creators are not actually infinite, why does the creator of the universe have to be?

That being said, if God is infinite...and then created something new, how could God have been infinite before that new thing was created? This would suggest that reality is now an infinite God + a new universe. Likewise, how could God be infinite following the creation of the universe if God is separate from the universe? That would suggest that God is/was finite. Which is impossible, right?

 

[Received]

First, you claim an actual infinite cannot exist in reality; then you claim that being infinite is a metaphysical requirement for being God. Which is it?

Both. An actual infinite refers to a set with infinite numbers, e.g. Infinity by itself doesn't refer to a set; or there is just one number in this set, infinity.

How does that follow? Why can't there be multiple co-eternal entities?

Because anything that transcends this universe must by definition be infinite (e.g., infinitely big in all directions). You can only have room for one infinity in this sense.

 

[Received]

Huh? Why?



Why does the creator of the universe have to be infinite? Nissan's Infiniti's creators are not actually infinite, why does the creator of the universe have to be?

That being said, if God is infinite...and then created something new, how could God have been infinite before that new thing was created? This would suggest that reality is now an infinite God + a new universe. Likewise, how could God be infinite following the creation of the universe if God is separate from the universe? That would suggest that God is/was finite. Which is impossible, right?

I'm trying to answer the other questions elsewhere.

How could God be infinite before and after creating the universe? Much in the same way as a cloud passes over an "infinite" blue sky, the former being anything finite created (e.g., universes), with the latter being infinity, God. You don't need clouds to have the sky, and you need the sky to even consider having clouds.